Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavior: polling semantics, a 40-second wait, and what is returned when ready. It does not cover error/not-ready edge cases, but it adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted language, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the wait behavior. Every clause contributes either scope or practical usage information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has rich annotations and an output schema, and the description still complements them with async polling and wait behavior. It lacks explicit routing away from list_creations, but it is otherwise complete for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so id, ids, and wait are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the wait behavior and gives a usage rationale; it does not clarify id vs. ids or the max-4 constraint, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: check images or videos started with create_image or create_video. It also enumerates the returned information (status, minutes left, finished link), which distinguishes it from creation and listing siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains when to use it: after starting a creation, and optionally with wait=true to get the result in the same answer. It does not explicitly name list_creations as an alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.